In re Chandler, 362 B.R. 723 (Bankr.N.D.W.Va.2007) (because
Georgia had not opted out for nonresidents, debtor was
eligible for federal exemptions); In re Battle, 2006 WL 3702734
(Bankr.W.D.Tex.2006) (because debtor was not resident of
Florida on date of filing, debtor could not claim Florida’s
exemptions, but Florida’s opt-out, which was limited to
residents, did not bar debtor from claiming federal
exemptions); In re Nickerson, 375 B.R. 869 (Bankr.W.D.Mo.
2007) (debtors who are unable to take advantage of state
exemptions because they no longer reside in that state may
use the federal exemptions under the saving provision 11 USC
§ 522(b)(3)); In re West, 352 B.R. 905 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.2006)
(because debtor was not resident of Indiana on date of filing,
and its exemptions were limited to residents, its exemptions
were not available to her and debtor was eligible for the
federal exemptions under the saving provision in 11 USC § 522
(b)(3)); In re Jewell, 2006 WL 2258363 (Bankr.W.D.N.Y.2006)
(debtors, who were not residents of Colorado on date of filing
were not eligible for its exemptions because its exemptions
were limited to residents, but debtors were eligible for federal
exemptions under the saving provision); In re Crandall, 2006
WL 2051367 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.2006) (because debtor was not
domiciled in New York on date of filing, and its exemptions
were limited to domiciliaries, debtor was eligible for federal
exemptions under the saving provision in 522(b)(3)); In re
Underwood, 342 B.R. 358 (Bankr.N.D.Fla.2006) (because
debtor was not a resident of Colorado on date of filing and
Colorado’s exemptions and opt-out were limited to residents,
debtor was eligible for federal exemptions) In re Schulz, 101 B.
R. 301 (Bankr.N.D.Fla.1989) (because debtor was not resident
of Florida on date of filing, and Florida’s exemptions and opt-
out were limited to residents, debtor was not eligible for state
exemptions, but was entitled to federal exemptions); In re Volk,
26 B.R. 457 (Bankr.D.S.D.1983) (exemptions of South Dakota
were limited to residents and, therefore, were not available to
debtors who were not residents of South Dakota on date of
filing, but debtors were eligible for federal exemptions because
South Dakota’s opt-out was limited to residents); In re Walley,
9 B.R. 55 (Bankr.S.D.Ala.1981) (because Alabama’s
exemptions and opt-out were limited to residents and debtor
was not a resident of Alabama on date of filing, Alabama’s opt-
out did not apply and she could use the federal exemptions).